Assemblies of rabbis to determine common courses of
action or common principles of faith. Rabbinical conferences are a
late phenomenon in the history of Judaism, dating, as they do, only
from the fourth decade of the nineteenth century. There had been
occasional gatherings of Jews during earlier centuries to consider
important issues touching the life and religious practise of the
people; but the deliberations at these gatherings, or synods, as
they are usually called, were not participated in exclusively by the
rabbis (see Consistories; Synods,
Rabbinical).

The changed conditions in the life of the Jews in the
early years of the nineteenth century, owing to the emancipation
from medieval legislation and the accompanying necessity of
reconciling the religious beliefs and practises with the demands of
the new era upon which they had entered, were the moving causes for
the convening of the first rabbinical conference. There have been
five notable conferences: viz., at Brunswick, June 12-19, 1844; at
Frankfort-on-the-Main, July 15-28, 1845; at Breslau, July 13-24,
1846; at Philadelphia, Pa., Nov. 3-6, 1869; and at Pittsburg, Pa.,
Nov. 16-18, 1885. Besides these, mention may be made of the
following: the Jewish Ministers' Association, an organization of
rabbis stationed in the eastern cities of the United States, which
met annually from 1885 to 1890; the Conference of Southern Rabbis of
the United States, which existed from April 14, 1885, to Nov. 20,
1887, when it held its final meeting; and the Rabbinical Literary
Association, which was organized at Detroit, Mich., July 13, 1880,
and existed only two years. After the rabbinical conference at
Philadelphia three meetings were held in 1871 at Cleveland, New
York, and Cincinnati respectively. The so-called Cleveland
conference (Oct. 17-20, 1855) was not strictly a rabbinical
conference, since there were also a few lay delegates present. The
same was the case at the synods of Leipsic (June 29-July 4, 1869)
and Augsburg (July 11-17, 1871). Hence, these three meetings do not
come properly within the scope of this article. The same may be said
of the so-called French Sanhedrin, that met in 1807 at the call of
Napoleon, and all previous synods. In Germany and Hungary, local
conferences of rabbis are still held from time totime. The Central Conference of American Rabbis,
organized in 1889, meets in annual session.

In point of fact, however, the first purely rabbinical
conference took place at Wiesbaden in 1837, in answer to a call
issued by Abraham Geiger. In a letter to a colleague, dated May of
that year, Geiger had written as follows in reference to the purpose
of the proposed meeting: "It is not intended to create a new
Judaism, nor yet to assume the authority of a synod: it shall merely
give honest men the opportunity to discuss the proper methods of
conducting their office, and shall be the beginning of the
restoration of the almost vanished spirit of Judaism" ("Wiss. Zeit.
Jüd. Theol." iii. 321). This conference was attended by Rabbis
Geiger of Wiesbaden, Aub of Bayreuth, Bloch of Buchau, Guttmann of
Redwitz, Herxheimer of Bernburg, Kohn of Hohenems, Maier of
Stuttgart, Stein of Burgkunstadt, Wagner of Mannheim, Wassermann of
Mühringen, and Wechsler of Oldenburg. Friedländer of Brilon,
Grünebaum of Landau, and Hess of Eisenach arrived too late. These
men discussed various questions, but did not enunciate any important
decisions. The mere fact, however, that they had gathered for such
discussion was significant. A committee was appointed to prepare a
manual for domestic devotion in accordance with the needs of the
time. It was resolved to discuss in the pages of Geiger's
"Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Jüdische Theologie" the practical
questions which were agitating the Jewish communities at that
time.

The epoch-making conferences have been the five
mentioned by name above; they were respectively attended by most of
the prominent Reform rabbis of the time in Germany and America; and
their deliberations and decisions form an important chapter in the
development of the faith.

During the opening years of the fifth decade of the
nineteenth century the Jewish communities of Germany were stirred by
religious agitation as never before; the issue between the
traditionalists and the reformers was acute; the bitter opposition
of Tiktin, rabbi of Breslau, to the appointment of Geiger, the most
prominent reformer in Germany, had induced the officers of the
congregation to address the rabbis of Europe for opinions on the
subject; and these opinions were published in two volumes entitled
"Ueber die Verträglichkeit der Freien Forschung mit dem
Rabbineramte." The publication in 1842 of the new prayer-book of the
Hamburg Temple (Reform) congregation had called forth from Isaac
Bernays, the Orthodox leader, a declaration anathematizing the book
and the reformers. These latter, in their defense, published a
number of opinions of rabbis who sanctioned the reforms introduced
into the prayer-book; these rabbis were, besides the two preachers
of the congregation, Salomon and Frankfurter, the following: L.
Auerbach, Friedländer, Geiger, Guttmann, Holdheim, Kohn, Maier,
Mannheimer, Philippson, and Stein. The volume was entitled
"Theologische Gutachten über das Gebetbuch nach dem Gebrauche des
Neuen Israelitischen Tempelvereins in Hamburg" (Hamburg, 1842). The
action of a society of Jews in Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1843,
condemning circumcision, and resolving to abolish the rite in the
future so far as their children were concerned, had induced Solomon
Trier, the chief of the Orthodox of that city, to address his
colleagues for opinions on the absolute requirement of circumcision
as an essential of Jewish practise. These opinions, also, were
published in a volume entitled "Gutachten über die Beschneidung"
(Frankfort, 1814).

The time was ripe for the organization of a society of
rabbis at whose meetings all these vexed questions could be
discussed, and decisions reached for the guidance of the troubled
communities. Ludwig Philippson, editor of the "Allg. Zeit. des
Judenthums," recognized this need of the hour, as Geiger had done
before him; and he issued a call in the columns of his journal (Jan.
15, 1844, p. 27) for a rabbinical conference. In this call he
wrote:

"Let us speak plainly. The issue is no longer the
permissibility or non-permissibility of this or that synagogal
institution, of this or that alleviation for civil or social life:
the issue before us is concerned with the entire content of our
religion, which we must present and strengthen in its purity in
order to rescue it from deadening rigidity on the one hand and from
benumbing unfaith on the other. Judaism is losing influence day by
day, and every layman is asking us, 'What are you doing?' The
objects of the conference shall be: (1) to bring the rabbis into
closer relations and acquaintanceship; (2) to promote unanimity in
the conduct of the rabbinical office; (3) to further the founding of
communal institutions; and (4) to deliberate upon all Jewish
affairs."

A number of rabbis declared themselves in sympathy with
this call, and it resulted in the convening of the Brunswick
conference of 1844.

A. Adler of Worms; S. Adler of Alzey; Ben Israel of
Coblenz; Bodenheimer of Hildesheim; Adler of Minden; Formstecher of
Offenbach; Frankfurter of Hamburg; Geiger of Breslau; Goldman of
Kurhessen; Heidenheim of Sondershausen; Herzfeld of Brunswick;
Herxheimer of Bernburg; Hess of Weimar; Hirsch of Luxemburg;
Hoffmann of Meiningen; Holdheim of Mecklenburg-Schwerin; Jolowicz of
Marienwerder; J. Kahn of Treves; Klein of Pomerania; Maier of
Stuttgart, who was president of the conference; Philippson of
Magdeburg; Salomon of Hamburg; Schott of Randegg; Sobernheim of
Bingen.

The purpose of the conference was declared to be "to
consider the ways and means for the preservation of Judaism, and the
awakening of the religious spirit."

The resolutions passed by the conference were as
follows:

"The oath of a Jew is binding without any further
ceremony than the invocation of the name of God. The prayer 'Kol
Nidre' is unessential; and the members of the conference were to
take steps to abolish it on the following Day of
Atonement."

The conference indorsed the responsa of the French
Sanhedrin, with the exception of the third, which it changed to read
as follows:

"The marriage of a Jew with a Christian—in fact, the
marriage of a Jew with the adherent of any monotheistic religion—is
not forbidden if the civil law permits the parents to raise in the
Jewish religion the children issuing from such a
union."

A commission was appointed to consider a number of
important questions and to report at the next
conference.

The deliberations were concerned mainly with the
reports of the commission appointed atthe
Brunswick conference. There were present, besides the
above-mentioned:

J. Auerbach of Frankfort-on-the-Main; Einhorn of
Birkenfeld; Frankel of Dresden; Gosen of Marburg: Güldenstein of
Buchau; Jost of Frankfort; Reiss of Alt-Breisach; Stein of
Burgkunstadt; Suesskind of Wiesbaden; Treuenfels of Weilburg; Wagner
of Mannheim; Wechsler of Oldenburg; Leopold Stein of
Frankfort-on-the-Main, who was president of the
conference.

The first report discussed was that on the retention of
Hebrew in the public services. The conference voted unanimously for
the retention of the sacred language. On the question, to what
extent, there was a decided difference of opinion. The
recommendation of the committee, adopted by a vote of 18 to 12, was
that the "Bareku" with its response, the "Shema'" (first paragraph),
the first and last three benedictions of the "Tefillah," and the
selection from the Torah should be in Hebrew, and that the remainder
of the service should be in the vernacular.

The conference also decided (in the affirmative) the
question "Shall the prayers for the return to the land of our
forefathers and for the restoration of the Jewish state be
eliminated from the ritual?" Closely connected with this was the
question as to whether the Messianic idea was to receive prominent
and distinct expression in the ritual. This also was decided in the
affirmative.

Although the conference voted for the retention of the
"Musaf" prayer, yet it was definitely understood that the
traditional supplication for the restoration of the sacrifices
should be so changed as to be a mere mention of the sacrifices as
historical reminiscences.

On the question of the reading from the Torah, the
majority voted for the triennial cycle; and the reading of the
"Hafṭarah" in the vernacular was favored.

The conference was unanimous in its affirmative vote on
the admissibility of the organ into the synagogue. All the members
but three agreed that a Jew was permitted to play the organ on the
Sabbath, and that by so doing he did not violate the law of Sabbath
observance.

The conference considered favorably the suggestion
submitted by the Berlin Reform Association for the calling of a
synod "in which the lay and the theological elements shall be alike
represented."

The conference decided in the affirmative the question
whether modern bathing establishments can be used for ritualistic
purposes. A committee was appointed to direct the attention of the
people to the need of theological
seminaries.

It was at this conference that the irreconcilable
differences between the traditionalists and the reformers received
decisive expression. The discussions had shown that many of the
members held radical views on a number of vital points connected
with the ritual. Zacharias Frankel, who declared himself to be a
champion of positive historical Judaism, desired the conference to
issue a statement of definite principles. In this he was opposed
particularly by Geiger and Holdheim, and, although a majority of the
meeting was in sympathy with Frankel's views, yet the conference
supported his two chief opponents in their contention that no
definite declaration of principles should be formulated, because
such a theoretical document would result only in antagonisms and
would not assist in solving the burning questions of the day.
Frankel withdrew from the conference, and became the leader of the
adherents of so-called "positive historical" Judaism. Frankel issued
a call in May, 1846, for a conference of Jewish theologians, to be
held in the fall of that year, and to be the organ of the opposition
to the Reform conferences; but the meeting did not take
place.

A. Adler of Worms; S. Adler of Alzey; J. Auerbach of
Frankfort-on-the-Main; Ben Israel of Coblenz; Einhorn of Birkenfeld;
Formstecher of Offenbach; Geiger of Breslau (who was president of
the conference); Goldstein of Waren; Gosen of Marburg; Güldenstein
of Buchau; Herxheimer of Bernburg; Herzfeld of Brunswick; Hess of
Eisenach; Holdheim of Mecklenburg-Schwerin: J. Kahn of Treves; M.
Levy of Breslau; L. Lövy of Münsterberg; Pick of Teplitz; Philippson
of Magdeburg; Sobernheim of Bingen; Stein of Frankfort-on-the-Main;
Wagner of Mannheim; Wechsler of
Oldenburg.

A number of important declarations were made on vital
subjects, such as the Sabbath, the holidays, circumcision, and
mourning customs. The conference expressed itself on the Sabbath
question to the effect that the restoration of the solemn observance
of the Sabbath as a day of rest and sanctification is incumbent not
only upon the teacher in Israel, but upon every Israelite. Therefore
special care must be taken in these days to insure the solemnity of
the public services and to secure the observance of Sabbath in the
home. Work which is ordinarily prohibited on the Sabbath is
permitted in connection with divine services if necessary for the
proper conduct of these services. If a man's livelihood is
endangered by the closing of his business on the Sabbath, he may
have his business attended to by non-Jews. If contingencies arise
threatening the material welfare, any kind of work may be done on
the Sabbath to avoid this; for example, in case of fire. Any and all
manner of labor is permitted on the Sabbath in cases where human
life—whether of Jew or non-Jew—is in danger. The rabbinical
prohibitions known as "hedges"—rigorous interpretations of Sabbath
laws—are no longer binding. Such institutions as "'Erube Ḥaẓerot"
and "'Erube Teḥumim," which are mere evasions of the Sabbath laws,
although their ostensible purpose is relaxation of the strictness of
these laws, are both superfluous and inadmissible. The Jewish
soldier must attend to his duties on the Sabbath. As for the Jew who
holds a public office, although he is bound to perform the duties
connected with his office, yet he should exert himself to restore
the solemnity of the day in his home. Brain-work is not included in
the categories of labor prohibited on the Sabbath.

The conference made the following pronouncements
concerning the holidays: Congregations are justified in abolishing
the second day's observance of the holidays with the exception of
the second day of Rosh ha-Shanah. If, however, some of the members
of a congregation should object to such abolition, these days are to
be continued as occasions for public worship, but the prohibition to
work on themis no longer binding in any
event. The eating of leavened bread is permitted on the
twenty-second day of Nisan, the so-called eighth or last day of
Passover. It is permitted to blow the shofar on the first day of the
New-Year when it happens to fall on the Sabbath. The same is the
case with the use of the four fruits on the first day of Succot when
that falls on the Sabbath.

The question of circumcision was made the occasion for
a number of declarations, of which the most important were these:
Every "mohel" should be required to pass an examination, after being
instructed by a surgeon, and should prove by his credentials his
authority to perform the operation. The so-called "peri'ah" may be
performed with a surgical instrument if the assisting surgeon
prefers this to the finger-nail, which, as a rule, is used for the
purpose. The "meẓiẓah" is to be dispensed with. (See Circumcision.) A
physician should treat the child after circumcision. A physician
should examine the child before circumcision, and decide whether the
operation can be safely performed, or whether on account of sickness
or bodily weakness it had best be postponed. If parents have had the
misfortune to lose a child, or a child has become a chronic invalid,
owing to the operation, and they fear to have other children
circumcised, they may postpone the rite until the physician declares
that there is absolutely no danger from its
performance.

The conference gave expression to some decided views on
traditional mourning customs. It declared that such practises as the
rending of the garments, allowing the beard to grow for thirty days
after the death, sitting on the floor, removing the leather shoes,
the prohibitions of washing, bathing, and greeting, have lost all
significance in these days; nay, more, are repulsive to the
religious feeling, and should be abolished. The mourner should
remain at home for three days, counting from the day of burial. The
mourner should also, as far as possible, abstain from business on
the day of the funeral and for two days after the burial. Many
important resolutions were referred to committees, but were not
acted upon by the conference.

Each of these conferences aroused intense excitement;
protests against the discussions and resolutions of the conferences
being issued by opponents, while pamphlets in defense were published
by participants. The Brunswick conference called forth a protest
from seventy-seven German and Hungarian rabbis; also publications
such as ", Protestation Gegen die Rabbinerversammlung von D.
Deutsch, Rabbiner in Sohrau, O. S." In defense were issued; "Die
Erste Rabbinerversammlung und Ihre Gegner," by Kirchenrath Dr.
Maier, and the pamphlet by Holdheim, "Die Erste Rabbinerversammlung
und Herr Dr. Frankel." The press of the day, notably the three
Jewish publications, "Die Allgemeine Zeitschrift des Judenthums,"
"Orient," and Frankel's "Zeitschrift für die Interessen des
Judenthums," contained articles pro and con. Feeling ran very high,
and this was intensified by the Frankfort conference, which had
resulted in an open break with Frankel and the conservatives. The
bitterness of the feelings engendered is apparent from such an
incident as the refusal on the part of Michael Sachs, the famous
preacher of the Berlin congregation, to receive one of the rabbis
who had attended the Frankfort conference.

A conference of the rabbis of Baden, held in the summer
of 1845 after the Frankfort conference, declared for Reform on the
historico-traditional basis. The Breslau conference called forth a
bitter declaration from some Jews of Frankfort-on-the-Main,
condemning the conference for its cowardice in not dealing
fearlessly with the Sabbath question. This aroused the participants
in the conference, notably Geiger, Philippson, Stein, and Wechsler,
who wrote in defense of their action. These were days of "storm and
stress" in Judaism. No further conferences were held. The hope of
the founders of the rabbinical conference, that it might become the
authoritative tribunal for the solution of the vexing problems that
were agitating the Jewish congregations, was not realized, owing to
the political reaction following the year 1848. In 1868 an
unsuccessful attempt was made to convene a rabbinical conference at
Cassel.

These conferences did not succeed in effecting their
object because the differences in Jewry were too pronounced. Had
they frankly and outspokenly taken either the Reform or the Orthodox
position, they might have received acknowledgment as the authority
from the adherents of the cause they espoused. It was impossible to
satisfy all parties; the participants in the conferences represented
many shades of opinion, from the extreme radicalism of Holdheim to
the conservative traditionalism of the sympathizer with Frankel,
although their main tendency was toward Reform. The conferences
furnished at most a forum where vital questions were discussed, and
expression was given to interesting views, but they did not attain
an authoritative place. They were at best expressive of the
conflicts and disturbances that were agitating Jewish thought in the
fifth decade of the nineteenth
century.

The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of
the old Jewish state under a descendant of David, involving a second
separation from the nations of the earth, but the union of all the
children of God in the confession of the unity of God, so as to
realize the unity of all rational creatures and their call to moral
sanctification.

"2.

We look upon the destruction of the second Jewish
commonwealth not as a punishment for the sinfulness of Israel, but
as a result of the divine purpose revealed to Abraham, which, as has
become ever clearer in the course of the world's history, consists
in the dispersion of the Jews to all parts of the earth, for the
realization of their high-priestly mission, to lead the nations to
the true knowledge and worship of
God.

"3.

The Aaronic priesthood and the Mosaic sacrificial cult
were preparatory steps to the real priesthood of the whole people,
which began with the dispersion of the Jews, and to the sacrifices
of sincere devotion and moral sanctification, which alone are
pleasing and acceptable to the Most Holy. These institutions,
preparatory to higher religiosity, were consigned to thepast, once for all, with the destruction of the Second
Temple, and only in this sense—as educational influences in the
past—are they to be mentioned in our
prayers.

"4.

Every distinction between Aaronides and non-Aaronides,
as far as religious rites and duties are concerned, is consequently
inadmissible, both in the religious cult and in social
life.

"5.

The selection of Israel as the people of religion, as
the bearer of the highest idea of humanity, is still, as ever, to be
strongly emphasized, and for this very reason, whenever this is
mentioned, it shall be done with full emphasis laid on the
worldembracing mission of Israel and the love of God for all His
children.

"6.

The belief in the bodily resurrection has no religious
foundation, and the doctrine of immortality refers to the
after-existence of the soul
only.

"7.

Urgently as the cultivation of the Hebrew language, in
which the treasures of divine revelation were given and the immortal
remains of a literature that influences all civilized nations are
preserved, must be always desired by us in fulfilment of a sacred
duty, yet it has become unintelligible to the vast majority of our
coreligionists; therefore, as is advisable under existing
circumstances, it must give way in prayer to intelligible language,
which prayer, if not understood, is a soulless
form."

The conference passed a number of resolutions on
marriage and divorce, and declared that "the male child of a Jewish
mother is, no less than her female child, in accordance with a
never-disputed principle of Judaism, to be considered a Jew by
descent, even though he be
uncircumcised."

We recognize in every religion an attempt to grasp the
Infinite, and in every mode, source, or book of revelation held
sacred in any religious system the consciousness of the indwelling
of God in man. We hold that Judaism presents the highest conception
of the God-idea as taught in our Holy Scriptures and developed and
spiritualized by the Jewish teachers, in accordance with the moral
and philosophical progress of their respective ages. We maintain
that Judaism preserved and defended, midst continual struggles and
trials and under enforced isolation, this God-idea as the central
religious truth for the human
race.

"2.

We recognize in the Bible the record of the
consecration of the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of
the one God, and value it as the most potent instrument of religious
and moral instruction. We hold that the modern discoveries of
scientific researches in the domain of nature and history are not
antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism, the Bible reflecting the
primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its conception
of Divine Providence and Justice dealing with man in miraculous
narratives.

"3.

We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of
training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life
in Palestine, and to-day we accept as binding only its moral laws,
and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives,
but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of
modern
civilization.

"4.

We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as
regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and
under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental
and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a
spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt
rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual
elevation.

"5.

We recognize in the modern era of universal culture of
heart and intellect the approaching of the realization of Israel's
great Messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth,
justice, and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no longer a
nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a
return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of
Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish
state.

"6.

We recognize in Judaism a progressive religion, ever
striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason. We are
convinced of the utmost necessity of preserving the historical
identity with our great past. Christianity and Islam being daughter
religions of Judaism, we appreciate their providential mission to
aid in the spreading of monotheistic and moral truth. We acknowledge
that the spirit of broad humanity of our age is our ally in the
fulfilment of our mission, and therefore we extend the hand of
fellowship to all who operate with us in the establishment of the
reign of truth and righteousness among
men.

"7.

We reassert the doctrine of Judaism that the soul is
immortal, grounding this belief on the divine nature of the human
spirit, which forever finds bliss in righteousness and misery in
wickedness. We reject, as ideas not rooted in Judaism, the beliefs
both in bodily resurrection and in Gehenna and Eden (Hell and
Paradise) as abodes for everlasting punishment and
reward.

"8.

In full accordance with the spirit of Mosaic
legislation, which strives to regulate the relation between rich and
poor, we deem it our duty to participate in the great task of modern
times, to solve, on the basis of justice and righteousness, the
problems presented by the contrasts and evils of the present
organization of
society."

The conference adopted the following resolution on the
proselyte question:

"Inasmuch as the so-called Abrahamitic rite is by many,
and the most competent, rabbis no longer considered as a conditio
sine qua non of receiving male Gentiles into the fold of
Judaism, and inasmuch as a new legislation on this and kindred
subjects is one of the most imperative and practical demands of our
Reform movement, be it

"Resolved that a committee of five, one of them to be
the president of this conference, be entrusted with framing a full
report to be submitted for final action to the next
conference."

This conference has been the only one to make a
definite statement on the question of Sunday services. Its
declaration on the subject was to this effect:

"Whereas we recognize the importance of maintaining the
historical Sabbath as a bond with our great past and the symbol of
the unity of Judaism the world over; and whereas, on the other hand,
it can not be denied that there is a vast number of working men and
others who, from some cause or other, are not able to attend the
services on the sacred day of rest; be it resolved that there is
nothing in the spirit of Judaism or its laws to prevent the
introduction of Sunday services in localities where the necessity
for such services appears or is felt."

The conference also recommended that each rabbi read
only such sections of the Pentateuch as he thinks proper, but with
regard, however, to the regulations of the Hebrew
calendar.

The first meeting was held in Detroit, Mich., July 9,
1889, at the initiation of Isaac M. Wise.
The meeting for organization was presided over by David Philipson,
with Henry Berkowitz as secretary. At a session on the following day
a series of resolutions was adopted as the working basis of the
conference. One of these fixed the position of the conference in the
historical succession of rabbinical deliberative bodies, by
declaring that "the proceedings of all the modern rabbinical
conferences, from that held in Brunswick in 1844, and including all
like assemblages held since, shall be taken as a basis for the work
of this conference in an endeavor to maintain in unbroken succession
the formulated expression of Jewish life and thought in each
era."

Actuated by the spirit of this resolution, the
conference elected as honorary president Samuel Adler, the only
surviving member of the various German conferencesheld after the year 1840; and Isaac M. Wise was elected
president. The conference has since met in annual session in the
following cities: Cleveland, 1890; Baltimore, 1891; New York city,
1892; Chicago, 1893; Atlantic City, 1894; Rochester, N. Y., 1895;
Milwaukee, Wis., 1896; Montreal, Canada, 1897; Atlantic City, 1898;
Cincinnati, 1899; Buffalo, 1900; Philadelphia, 1901; New Orleans,
1902. All of these meetings were held in the month of July, with the
exception of those at Chicago, Cincinnati, and New Orleans. The
Chicago conference took place Aug. 23-26, introductory to the Jewish
Denominational Congress, held in connection with the World's
Parliament of Religions; and, together with the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations, it represented Judaism officially at the
Parliament. The papers read by the members of the conference, both
at the Jewish Denominational Congress and at the general Parliament,
were published by the Union in a volume entitled "Judaism at the
World's Parliament of Religions" (Cincinnati, 1894). The Cincinnati
meeting in 1899 was held in March instead of July, in order to
celebrate the eightieth birthday of Isaac M. Wise, founder and
president of the conference from its organization. An extra session
was held at Washington, D. C., in Dec., 1892. The meeting at New
Orleans took place May 6-10, 1902. The proceedings of the various
meetings of the conference are given in detail in a series of
year-books, containing not only the record of the business
transacted and the discussions by the members on religious doctrine
and practise, but also of the papers read at the
sessions.

Although the conference is open to rabbis of any
opinion, it is in reality an association of ministers of the Reform
school; and while it formulated no declaration of principles, yet
its position in all its deliberations and proceedings has been taken
firmly on the basis of the Reform movement. This was evident
particularly in the discussion of the authority of the Talmud and
the rabbinical codes. At the meeting held in Rochester in 1895, the
president in his annual address proposed for discussion and decision
the question, "What is our relation in all religious matters to our
own post-Biblical and patristic literature, including the Talmud,
casuists, responses, and commentaries?" The committee to whom the
question was referred reported as follows:

"From the standpoint of Reform Judaism, the whole
post-Biblical and patristic literature, including the Talmud,
casuists, responses, and commentaries, is, and can be considered as,
nothing more nor less than 'religious literature.' As such it is of
inestimable value. It is the treasure-house in which the successive
ages deposited their conceptions of the great and fundamental
principles of Judaism and their contributions to the never-ceasing
endeavor to elucidate the same. Consciously or unconsciously, every
age has added a wing to this great treasure-house, and the
architecture and construction of each wing bear the indelible marks
of the peculiar characteristics of the time in which it was erected.
Our age is engaged in the same task. We too have to contribute to
the enlargement of this treasure-house; but we have to do it in our
own way, as the spirit of our time directs, without any slavish
imitation of the past.

"To have awakened the consciousness of this historic
fact is the great merit of Reform Judaism; and the more this
consciousness grows upon our mind, the more the conditions and
environments of our modern life force it upon us, the more
persistently we have to assert that our relations in all religious
matters are in no way authoritatively and finally determined by any
portion of our post-Biblical and patristic
literature."

The notable achievements of the conference are: its
preparation and publication of the Union Prayer-Book for Jewish
worship; its successful representation of Judaism at the World's
Parliament of Religions, as described above; its declaration on the
requirements for the admission of proselytes; and, more than all,
its uniting in one body the Reform rabbis of the country. The Union
Prayer-Book is used at present (1902) by 158 congregations, in all
portions of the country, having superseded most of the prayer-books
in use heretofore. It attempts to combine the best elements of the
traditional service with prayers expressing the aspirations of
modern days. In its report to the general meeting, the ritual
committee entrusted with the preparation of the work stated thus the
principles that had guided it:

"Imbued with the earnestness of the task that was laid
upon us, we endeavored to conform the ritual for these two great
holidays to the spirit and principle of the first part of our Union
Prayer-Book, to unite the soul-stirring reminiscences of the past
with the urgent demands of the present, and to enhance the solemnity
of the service by combining the two essential elements, the ancient
time-honored formulas with modern prayers and meditations in the
vernacular."

The declaration of the conference on the admission of
proselytes, adopted at the New York meeting in 1892, is as
follows:

"Resolved that the Central Conference of American
Rabbis, assembled this day in this city of New York, considers it
lawful and proper for any officiating rabbi, assisted by no less
than two associates, and in the name and with the consent of his
congregation, to accept into the sacred covenant of Israel, and
declare fully affiliated with the congregation , any honorable and intelligent person who desires such
affiliation, without any initiatory rite, ceremony, or observance
whatever; provided such person be sufficiently acquainted with the
faith, doctrine, and religious usages of Israel; that nothing
derogatory to such person's moral and mental character is suspected;
that it is his or her free will and choice to embrace the cause of
Judaism; and that he or she declare verbally, and in a document
signed and sealed before such officiating rabbi and his associates,
his or her intention and firm
resolve—

"1.

To worship the One Sole and Eternal God, and none
besides
Him.

"2.

To be conscientiously governed in his or her doings and
omissions in life by God's laws, ordained for the child and image of
the Father and Maker of all, the sanctified son or daughter of the
divine
covenant.

"3.

To adhere in life and death actively and faithfully to
the sacred cause and mission of Israel, as marked out in Holy
Writ."

The conference has published, in addition to the eleven
year-books and the two volumes of the Union Prayer-Book, a Union
Hymnal, and a volume entitled "Sermons by American Rabbis." One-half
of the income from the sale of the Union Prayer-Book is placed to
the credit of the fund for superannuated ministers; and a number of
worthy rabbis, incapacitated from active service by age or physical
infirmity, have been assisted by donations from this
fund.

At present (1902) the conference has 149 active and
four honorary members. Its constitution declares that "all active
and retired rabbis of congregations, and professors of rabbinical
seminaries, shall be eligible for membership." In March, 1900, it
suffered the loss of its founder and president, Isaac M. Wise, in
whose honor the meeting at Buffalo in July of that year largely
assumed the characterof a memorial meeting.
At this meeting Joseph Silverman of New York, who had been first
vice-president, was elected president of the
body.Bibliography:Protokolle der Ersten
Rabbinerversammlung (Brunswick,
1844);Protokolle und Aktenstücke der,
Zweiten Rabbinerversammlung, Frankfort-on-the-Main,
1845;Protokolle der Dritten Versammlung
Deutscher Rabbiner, Breslau,
1847;Protokolle der Rabbiner-Konferenz
Abgehalten zu Philadelphia, New York,
1870;Authentic Report of the Proceedings
of the Rabbinical Conference held at Pittsburg, Pa., in
Jewish Reformer, New York, Jan. 15,
1886;Jost,
Culturgeschichte der Israeliten in
1815-1845, pp. 234, 241, 259, Berlin,
1847, and Geschichte des Judenthums und
Seiner Sekten, iii. 379-386, Leipsic,
1859;idem, Geschichte des Judenthums von
Mendelsohn bis auf die Neuere Zeit, pp.
275et seq., Berlin,
1870;IsraelDeutsch, Zur Würdigung der
Braunschweiger Rabbinerversammlung, Leipsic.
1844;and the publications mentioned in the body of
the article as well as the articles in the Jewish journals also
indicated above; likewise the journal established especially for
this purpose, viz.: Die Reform des Judenthums, Organ für
die Rabbinerversammlung Deutschlands, Mannheim,
1846.D.P.

The great influx of Orthodox Jews—that is, of those who
follow the rabbinical ordinances of Judaism besides the
prescriptions of the Bible—within the last twenty-five years in
America has made a union imperative.

The first real attempt to effect a union of Orthodox
congregations was made on June 8, 1898, when a convention met in New
York, in which fifty congregations were represented. H. Pereira
Mendes was elected as president, and as vice-presidents Ph. Klein,
Meldola de Sola, and H. W. Schneeberger.

The following principles were agreed
to:

"This conference of delegates from Jewish congregations
in the United States and the Dominion of Canada is convened to
advance the interests of positive Biblical, rabbinical, and
historical Judaism.

"We are assembled not as a synod, and therefore we have
no legislative authority to amend religious questions, but as a
representative body, which by organization and co-operation will
endeavor to advance the interests of Judaism in America.

"We favor the convening of a Jewish synod specifically
authorized by congregations to meet, to be composed of men who must
be certified rabbis, and (a) elders in official position (cf.
Num. xi. 16); (b) men of wisdom and understanding, and known
among us (cf. Deut. i. 13); (c) able men, God-fearing men,
men of truth, hating profit (cf. Ex. xviii. 21).

"We believe in the Divine revelation of the Bible, and
we declare that the Prophets in no way discountenanced ceremonial
duty, but only condemned the personal life of those who observed
ceremonial law, but disregarded the moral. Ceremonial law is not
optative; it is obligatory.

"We affirm our adherence to the acknowledged codes of
our Rabbis and the thirteen principles of Maimonides.

"We believe that in our dispersion we are to be united
with our brethren of alien faith in all that devolves upon men as
citizens; but that religiously, in rites, ceremonies, ideals, and
doctrines, we are separate, and must remain separate in accordance
with the Divine declaration: 'I have separated you from the nations
to be Mine' (Lev. xx. 26).

"And further, to prevent misunderstanding concerning
Judaism, we reaffirm our belief in the coming of a personal Messiah,
and we protest against the admission of proselytes into the fold of
Judaism without 'milah' and 'ṭebilah.'

"We protest against intermarriage between Jew and
Gentile; we protest against the idea that we are merely a religious
sect, and maintain that we are a nation, though temporarily without
a national home; and

"Furthermore, that the restoration to Zion is the
legitimate aspiration of scattered Israel, in no way conflicting
with our loyalty to the land in which we dwell or may dwell at any
time.

It was determined that the object of the organization,
to be known as the "Jewish Congregational Union of America," should
be the promotion of the religious interests of Orthodox Jews.
Questions of Orthodoxy in connection with the admission of members
should be decided by a sub-committee of five. H. Pereira Mendes was
elected permanent president. The objects of local unions were stated
to
be:

"1.

To strengthen congregational life, but not to interfere
in congregational
autonomy.

"2.

To advance the interests of local Judaism by the
appointment of committees on congregational membership; civil
legislation; Jewish presentations; city religious work (mission,
circuit preaching); to devise uniform methods in Hebrew and
religious schools; a union to send out rabbis for propaganda under
the direction of the executive
committee.

The convention held in New York Dec. 30, 1900, under
the presidency of H. P. Mendes, represented 104
congregations.K.H.P.M.